On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.deche...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Paul Eggleton > <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> > On Friday 26 April 2013 23:41:38 Koen Kooi wrote: >>> >> And do you really need a .inc? >>> > >>> > Are we removing inc files if they were present in OE Classic? First I've >>> > heard if we are... >>> >>> If we are trying to reduce the number of versions of recipes we carry, >>> dropping .inc files would seem to be a good idea. I don't have strong >>> feelings, but it seems like something we should consider. >> >> I agree we should try to keep only one version of each recipe in software >> layers, however I figure it makes it easier for people to carry their own >> versions of recipes in distro layers (particularly older, which may be >> required in certain circumstances) if we do keep inc files where they already >> exist. > > I put the .inc in this patch, indeed because it was there in OE > Classic. I can update the patch if there is a consensus to remove the > .inc. > > also for the INC_PR, I added it, because I thought it makes sense for > .bb with .inc to have that. again, i can update the patch if you > recommend doing this way. > > thx
hi, can you please let me know what I should do here? i can update the patch if needed, but not sure there is a clear consensus on what to do! nicolas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
